1. Human Trafficking in the Baltic Sea Region:
State and Civil Society Cooperation
on Victims’ Assistance
and Protection
2.
3. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME
Vienna
Human Trafficking
in the Baltic Sea Region:
State and Civil Society Cooperation on
Victims’ Assistance and Protection
UNITED NATIONS
New York, 2010
5. iii
This study was conducted within the Preparatory Regional Project on Fostering NGO – Law Enforcement
Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking in, from and to the Baltic Sea Region – Jointly
implemented by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Council of the Baltic Sea
States Task Force against Trafficking in Human Beings (CBSS TF-THB).
6. iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS1
BAGFW Coordination Group of the German Welfare Organisations
BKA Federal Criminal Police Office
BMAS Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs
BMFSFJ Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth
CBSS Council of the Baltic Sea States
CBSS TF-THB Council of the Baltic Sea States Task Force against Trafficking in Human Beings
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
CJA Criminal Justice Authorities
CoE Council of Europe
CMM Danish Centre against Human Trafficking
DIS Danish Immigration Service
EEA European Economic Area
EU European Union
FAFO Institute for Applied International Studies
GARP Government Assisted Repatriation Programme
IACB Inter-Agency Coordination Body
ICMPD International Centre for Migration Policy Development
ILO International Labour Organization
IO International Organization
IOM International Organization for Migration
KOK German Nationwide Activist Coordination Group Combating Trafficking in Women
and Violence against Women in the Process of Migration
KOM Coordination Unit for Human Trafficking
LEA Law Enforcement Agencies
LKA Länder Criminal Police Offices
NAP National Action Plan/Program
NBI National Bureau of Investigation
NC National Coordinator
NCI National Centre for Investigation
NCM National Coordination Mechanism
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NMT National Support Operations against Prostitution and Trafficking in Human Beings
NRG National Reference Group
NRM National Referral Mechanism
MIJ Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality
MoU Memoranda of Understanding
MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MoI/A Ministry of Interior/Administration
MoJ Ministry of Justice
MoL Ministry of Labour
ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
REAG Reintegration and Emigration Programme for Asylum-Seekers in Germany
RG Regional Groups
ROSA Re-establishment, Organizing safe accommodation, Safety and Assistance Project
1 For ease of reference, acronyms referring to national institutions appear as they are used in the countries,
while the corresponding names of national institutions are translated into English.
7. v
RUA Foreigners/Immigration Unit
SOLWODI Solidarity with Women in Distress
THB Trafficking in Human Beings
TIP Trafficking in Persons
TRM Transnational Referral Mechanism
UDI Directorate for Immigration
UN.GIFT United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
VoT Victim of Trafficking
8. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . 1
The Study . 2
PART 1 – Overview of Cooperation Mechanisms and Practices
in the Council of the Baltic Sea States Region . 8
1. Anti-Trafficking National Action Plans . 10
2. National Coordination Mechanisms . 14
2.1 National Coordinators . 16
2.2 Inter-Agency Coordination Bodies . 18
2.3 Anti-Trafficking Coordination Units/Centres/Agencies . 20
2.4 Working Groups at the Operational/Local Level . 21
2.5 Specialised Units . 22
3. National Rapporteurs or Equivalent Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Formalised Cooperation Agreements . 26
5. Cooperation Practices at the Operational Level . 28
5.1 Identification . 28
5.2 Referral . 31
5.3 Assistance and Support System . 32
5.4 Residence Regimes . 35
5.5 Victims/Witnesses in Court Proceedings . 36
5.6 Regional Cooperation for the Safe Referral, Return and Reintegration of
Victims of Human Trafficking . 39
6. Good Practices and Problem Areas . 40
7. Recommendations . 45
9. vii
PART 2 – Country Profiles . 49
Denmark . 50
Estonia . 62
Finland . 72
Germany . 86
Iceland . 100
Latvia . 108
Lithuania . 118
Norway . 128
Poland . 140
The Russian Federation . 150
Sweden . 158
ANNEX I – Anti-Trafficking Actors in the CBSS Region . 170
Bibliography . 176
10. viii
TABLE OF FIGURES – PART 1
Fig. 1 Anti-Trafficking Policy Tools in the CBSS Region . 11
Fig. 2 Implementation Timeframes of Policy Tools . 13
Fig. 3 Overview of National Coordination Mechanisms . 15
Fig. 4 National Coordination Mechanisms in CBSS Member States . 16
Fig. 5 National Coordinators in CBSS Member States . 18
Fig. 6 Inter-Agency Coordination Bodies in CBSS Member States . 19
Fig. 7 Anti-Trafficking Coordination Units . 21
Fig. 8 Working Groups at the Operational/Local Level . 22
Fig. 9 Anti-Trafficking Specialised Units . 23
Fig. 10 National Rapporteurs, Equivalent Mechanisms and other formulas . 25
Fig. 11 Cooperation Agreements . 27
Fig. 12 Multi-Stakeholders Identification Tools . 31
Fig. 13 Residence Regimes . 36
11. ix
TABLE OF FIGURES – PART 2
Fig. 1 Denmark: National Coordination Mechanism . 51
Fig. 2 Overview of the Danish Referral System . 53
Fig. 3 The Danish Centre against Human Trafficking . 53
Fig. 4 Estonia: National Coordination Mechanism . 63
Fig. 5 Finland: National Coordination Mechanism . 73
Fig. 6 Finland: Formalised Cooperation Agreements Overview Table . 75
Fig. 7 The System of Victims Assistance in Finland . 83
Fig. 8 Germany: National Coordination Mechanism . 88
Fig. 9 Iceland: National Coordination Mechanism . 101
Fig. 10 Latvia: National Coordination Mechanism . 109
Fig. 11 Latvia: Formalised Cooperation Agreements . 110
Fig. 12 Services offered by the Latvian NGO Shelter “Drosa Maja” (Safe House) . 113
Fig. 13 Lithuania: National Coordination Mechanism . 119
Fig. 14 Lithuania: Formalised Cooperation Agreements . 121
Fig. 15 Norway: National Coordination Mechanism . 129
Fig. 16 The Anti-Trafficking Coordination Unit (KOM) within the Norwegian coordination system . 130
Fig. 17 Identification Data gathered through the ROSA Project . 132
Fig. 18 Referrals to the Rosa Project in Norway . 134
Fig. 19 Poland: National Coordination Mechanism . 141
Fig. 20 Poland: Formalised Cooperation Agreements . 142
Fig. 21 The Russian Federation: National Coordination Mechanism . 151
Fig. 22 Sweden: National Coordination Mechanism . 160
13. 1
INTRODUCTION
Despite the efforts of governments, international organizations and civil society, human trafficking remains
a global problem. Around the world, millions of people are handled as commodities and exploited in an ever
evolving trade. It cannot be emphasized enough that one of the first important steps toward coordinating
an effective response is to understand the depth, breadth and scope of trafficking in persons. The United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has taken some important steps in the past, with “Trafficking in
Persons: Global Patterns” and the “Global Report on Trafficking in Persons” to begin to bridge this infor-mation
gap. However, UNODC recognises that global problems require not only global, but also regional
responses. That’s why studies like the one presented here are so crucial to understanding how best to combat
this modern form of slavery.
UNODC and the Council of the Baltic Sea States Task Force on Trafficking in Human Beings (CBSS
TF-THB)2 have teamed up to implement the “Preparatory Regional Project on Fostering Non Governmental
Organization (NGO) – Law Enforcement Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Human Trafficking in,
from and to the Baltic Sea Region”. The aim of the research carried out within the project and presented in
this study is to help lay the foundation for targeted and consistent approaches in the provision of assistance
and protection to victims of human trafficking through improved cooperation among State actors and civil
society organizations.3 The research aims in particular to establish a knowledge-base on existing cooperation
mechanisms, identify shortcomings and obstacles and formulate recommendations for improved cooperation.
A few main themes emerged throughout the research process. First, as already mentioned, reliable data gathering
is the foundation of any other effort to combat trafficking in persons. The findings here demonstrate serious
shortcomings in this area as well as a substantial under-reporting of cases. The latter may be due in part,
to NGO personnel in some countries not being authorised to identify to government authorities foreign
victims of trafficking. Second, many countries’ efforts are focussed on trafficking for sexual exploitation, to the
exclusion of other forms of exploitation. In this respect, particularly identification of and service provision to
victims of trafficking for other exploitative purposes is lacking. Third, and perhaps most relevant to the subject
of the study, was the need to enhance communication between civil society and State actors. Improved
communication between these two parties would facilitate shared understanding of what constitutes trafficking
in persons, establish priority areas and joint policies and establish direct channels of communication between
different service providers that do no rely upon personal contacts.
With this study and the important findings contained here, we have reached a milestone, and a crossroads,
in the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) region. It is now important to build upon the information
presented here in order to ensure that all parties move along a common path that will put an end to this crime
that shames us all.
2 The CBSS TF-THB is composed of experts from Government ministries based in the CBSS capitals. The members
of the CBSS are the States of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, the
Russian Federation, and Sweden. The European Commission is also part of the Task Force, but was not involved in the
implementation of the project. The CBSS TF-THB also has ten Observer States which take part in some of the activi-ties.
These include: Belarus, France, Italy, Romania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ukraine,
and the United States of America.
3 This report does not focus on children victims/minors as the mandate of the CBSS TF-THB is on adult victims only.
14. 2
THE STUDY
Geographic Scope of the Study
This study focuses on the 11 Member States of the CBSS, which are Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany,
Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation and Sweden.
Timeframe and Project Phases
The research was conducted between April and November 2009. It entailed a desk review phase, the gathering
of information from stakeholders in the participating countries through different sets of questionnaires, and
interviews during country assessment visits.
In order to assess the state of cooperation among anti-trafficking players, a broad range of practitioners was
consulted. Stakeholders involved in the project included anti-trafficking National Coordinators (NC), National
Rapporteurs, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA)(anti-trafficking specialised units where they are established),
Immigration Authorities, Labour Inspectorates, Criminal Justice Authorities, Assistance Service Providers,
comprising State, civil society representatives and in few instances international organizations (IOs), such as the
International Organization for Migration (IOM).
The number of NGOs and civil society actors consulted ranged from one to three per country. This was mostly
due to limited capacity in terms of time and resources available to conduct interviews in each country. Not all
categories of stakeholders were actively involved. In some instances labour inspectorates declined participation;
border guards were involved only in a few countries; and immigration authorities and prosecutor’s offices could
not be interviewed in all countries. Judges were not involved in the process in any of the participating States.4
The CBSS TF-THB members were instrumental in helping the research team to identify key players in each
country.
Sources and Methodology
Sources used for the study included official policy papers, such as National Programs and Action Plans (NAPs)
or other policy tools, NAP evaluation reports, specialised publications from intergovernmental organizations,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, research institutes and independent researchers.
Documents such as Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), ministerial directives, and operational guidelines
were analysed throughout the process as they were made available by interview partners in the countries. As
it was not always possible to translate such documents from the original language, non-official translations or
summaries were used whenever possible.5 This may have sometimes resulted in an incomplete representation of
the corresponding procedures.
A preliminary questionnaire was distributed to CBSS TF-THB delegates at the outset of the process in April
2009. The questionnaire focussed on gathering initial information on anti-trafficking actors in each country,
National Referral Mechanisms (NRMs) and existing cooperation agreements in place at the national and
regional level.
4 Direct cooperation with judges in anti-trafficking efforts is reportedly not an established practice. The respect for the
independence of the judiciary is often mentioned as a barrier to engage judges in cooperation projects.
5 Translation capacity for Danish, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Russian and Swedish documents was provided
through UNODC staff; translation capacity for Polish, Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian and Icelandic was provided by
the CBSS THB TF Members and interview partners in the countries.
15. 3
Prior to the country visits, a set of more detailed questionnaires was distributed to stakeholders in each country.
Questionnaires comprised a mix of open and closed questions aimed at gathering information on cooperation
practices in selected areas, e.g. identification, referral, support and assistance services for victims of trafficking
(VoTs), cooperation agreements (e.g. MoUs, contracts, etc.), structures and capacity building measures.
Specific questions were tailored for each target group in order to capture different aspects of operational
practices in consideration of the individual mandates of the stakeholders involved. Questionnaires length ranged
from about 20 to 50 questions depending on the target group.
Questionnaires from law enforcement and service providers were returned by all the countries that distributed
questionnaires (80%). Among these, 33% returned more than one questionnaire from law enforcement (police/
border guard units or different police units/representatives) and 55% returned more than one questionnaire
from service providers; 55% returned questionnaires from national coordinators offices, prosecutors, and
immigration authorities; 44% from labour inspectorates or similar bodies; 11% returned a questionnaire from
the office of the National Rapporteur.6
Individual interviews with single stakeholders lasted approximately two hours. Interviews aimed at gathering
more insight in each of the fields surveyed through the questionnaires and identifying specific issues of concern.
In the Russian Federation project activities could not be conducted as described above. An assessment visit to be
conducted by an expert from the UNODC Anti-Human Trafficking and Migrant Smuggling Unit scheduled
for July-August 2009 was ultimately not possible due to organizational restraints. Also access to sources used for
the analysis, such as questionnaires, directives, agreements, and other operational tools could not be obtained.7
In the final stages of the project however, State officials at the Ministry of Interior manifested interest in getting
involved in possible follow-up activities related to enhancing cooperation between State actors and civil society
in the field of victims’ assistance and protection. It is with the aim of supporting their endeavours that the
partial information that could be processed by the research team is presented in this study.
The Research Team
Country assessment visits were conducted by different individuals, involving a total of five UNODC staff, one
CBSS TF-THB Secretariat representative and the independent consultant leading the research activities for the
project. Each interview team included a maximum of two persons per country.
Members of the CBSS TF-THB were instrumental throughout the whole process, gathering information,
organising the country assessment visits, and revising the data for their respective country. Most of them were
also interviewed during country assessment visits in their official capacity at the national level.
Research Focus
The study attempts to provide insights into what institutionalised mechanisms and work practices are in place
in the CBSS Member States to facilitate cooperation among different stakeholders in the field of support
and assistance to trafficked persons. The ultimate aim of the research is to support the 11 target countries in
identifying good practices, problem areas and possible ways to improve cooperation at the national level as well
as regionally through targeted and consistent approaches.
The research focuses in particular on assessing how cooperation among different actors is addressed or regulated
in each country through policy tools, such as NAPs, the establishment of National Coordination Mechanisms
(NCMs), the adoption of formalised cooperation agreements (e.g. MoU), as well as key procedures at the
operational level.
6 In the very few instances where no questionnaires were returned and no interview partner in the same stakeholder
group could be interviewed, country profiles may present gaps in data.
7 See Part 2, Country Profile, The Russian Federation.
16. 4
The focus of the research as it was formulated by the CBSS TF-THB was originally limited to cooperation
between LEAs and NGOs providing assistance to victims of trafficking. Upon further discussions within the task
force, the scope was broadened to encompass cooperation between State actors and civil society organizations,
in acknowledgement of the importance of the numerous practitioners involved in anti-trafficking responses.
Defining the scope of this research was per se a challenging exercise as in fact, despite the broadened focus,
some significant realities of the CBSS region were not easy to capture within one formula. In countries such
as Sweden for instance, where the State takes care of most of the services for the assistance and protection of
victims, the parameters set (State actors-civil society) did not fit perfectly. Despite this, the data gathering
brought interesting insights also in such a context, as good practices as well as difficulties at the operational level
seem to be ultimately linked more closely to mandates, and related perceptions of priorities, than to the status
of the stakeholders (State versus civil society).8
The guiding questions around which the research revolves are the following:
1. To what extent is cooperation integrated into policies, structures, and procedures in each country?
2. What are the main problem areas related to victims’ assistance and support measures?
3. What tools may be developed to improve cooperation among different practitioners, enhancing the
national response as well as consistent approaches at the regional level?
In order to answer the above questions and to illustrate the type of institutional framework for cooperation in
place in each country, the first part of the data (part 1, chapter 1–3) has been organized around the description
of policy tools and coordination mechanisms. Although these first chapters may read as a description, comparing
country systems posed numerous challenges and in some cases, the representation chosen may not always do
justice to national contexts. Special attention was devoted to gathering information about the existence of
formalised cooperation agreements regulating work practices and procedures between different practitioners,
such as for instance MoUs between law enforcement and service providers, or between and among other State
actors and civil society organizations (part 1, chapter 4). Furthermore, selected areas at the operational level
were analysed to focus on specific fields where it is widely acknowledged that bridging the gap between actors
with different mandates is particularly challenging (Part 1, chapter 5). This part of the study covers procedures
and work practices relating in particular to the following areas: Victims’ identification procedures, referral
practices, access to assistance services, residence regimes linked to cooperation in criminal proceedings,
protection of victims/witness in court proceedings, and transnational referral and return of victims within the
CBSS region.
These areas are all complex and broad-ranging. In approaching each of them, the main focus was on assessing
whether the status quo is conducive to effective cooperation practices among different stakeholders or whether
gaps in procedures or tools exist.
With respect to victims’ identification for instance, some of the core questions focussed on what kind of
identification procedures are in place. The objective was to try and understand if procedures are designed in a
way that allows sufficient flexibility, recognising the role that a very broad range of actors may have in identify-ing
presumed trafficked persons, as well as acknowledging that the process requires time and the involvement
of different professionals to be carried out as needed. An important focus of the data gathering in this respect
was whether procedures allow referral of presumed victims to assistance and support services without the need
for the authorities to assess the case formally at the very outset, and if cooperation of different professionals is
integrated into procedures as a pre-requisite to provide good standards of victims’ protection.9
8 See Part 2, Country Profile, Sweden.
9 For a concise description of victims’ identification best practices and problem areas, see the EU Recommendations on
Identification and Referral to Services of Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings (2007), and the Report of the Experts Group
on Trafficking in Human Beings (2004).
17. 5
In areas such as referral practices, the focus was on the systemic features in place to ensure a coordinated
approach. Working questions addressed the existence of a first point of contact once a presumed victim had
been identified, and of guidelines for referral to help facilitate the process of identification, regardless of the
entry point of the victim. Another important focus was to assess if the practice of joint first contact interviews
and of risk assessments involving different professionals were established.
With respect to assistance services, attention was given to selected aspects related to coordination and co-operation,
such as the link between access to support and assistance and identification procedures; systemic
limitations in the targeting of services; and information available to different stakeholders on victims’ rights and
entitlements.
Finally an attempt has been made to report good practices, lessons learnt, new areas of attention, and problem
areas summarising information in text boxes throughout the country profiles.
It must be stressed that in response to the request of the CBSS TF-THB to keep the findings to a manageable
size, this study does not provide an overview of legislation (this type of data has however been analysed in other
recent publications)10 or data on the phenomenon of trafficking in the CBSS region.11 It is only in order to shed
light on emerging features that information pertaining for instance to recent or expected legislative changes or
to new trends detected in the phenomenon has been provided in the country profiles.
Structure of the Study
Part 1 of the study presents an overview of cooperation mechanisms and practices in the region, comparing data
gathered in the 11 Member States in the following areas:
1. National Programs and NAPs/other policy tools containing anti-trafficking measures
2. National Coordination Mechanisms (NCMs)
3. National Rapporteurs12
4. Formalised cooperation agreements (e.g. MoUs)
5. Cooperation practices at the operational level (identification, referral, assistance and support services,
victims/witnesses in criminal proceedings, regional cooperation for the safe referral, return and re-integration
of victims)
10 Data on legislative frameworks, criminal justice responses, and number of victims identified in each country has been
published in the UNODC-UN.Gift Global Report on Trafficking in Persons (2009). All the countries surveyed in this
study are covered by the Global Report. http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Global_Report_on_TIP.
pdf. Data on legislation and the trafficking phenomenon in EU Member States has been recently published by B.
Hancilova, and C. Massey, Evaluation of EU Member States’ legislation and the situation concerning trafficking in human
beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation, ICMPD, 2010 (awaited soon). A draft has been kindly provided for review,
courtesy of the author and ICMPD. The CBSS TF-THB plans to carry out a study on data collection about human
trafficking cases in the CBSS Region in the course of 2010.
11 A number of sources covering the trafficking phenomenon in the region are provided in the bibliography. For an
overview of existing literature published between 2000-2005 in four of the 11 CBSS Member States (Estonia, Germa-ny,
Lithuania, and Poland), see I. Orfano, ”Trafficking in human beings: An analysis of the literature and an overview
on the phenomenon in six European countries”, in I. Orfano et al., Headway. Improving Social Intervention Systems for
Victims of Trafficking, Noktus, Warsaw, 2007.
12 National Rapporteurs may also be considered part of NCMs, as in “Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings
in the OSCE Area, Coordination and Reporting Mechanism”, Annual Report of the OSCE Special Representative and
Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, Vienna, 2008. http://www.osce.org/cthb/item_11_36298.html
18. 6
Part 2 contains country profiles for the 11 CBSS Member States. The data analysed in the country profiles
reflect the same areas presented in Part 1 with minimum variations in structure due to country context and
specific national features.
The International Framework for Action to Implement the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, was used as a
reference tool to define the parameters for the analysis.13 A description of the variables and indicators used is
provided in the introduction to Part 1 “Overview of Cooperation Mechanisms and Practices in the Council of
the Baltic Sea States Region”.
13 International Framework for Action to Implement the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, September 2009,
http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Framework_for_Action_TIP.pdf. The variables analysed are
based on the sections pertaining to Protection and Assistance, National Cooperation, International Cooperation among
Member States, Cooperation among International and Regional Organizations.
20. 8
PART 1 – OVERVIEW OF COOPERATION MECHANISMS AND PRACTICES
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE BALTIC SEA STATES REGION
Introduction
The importance of cooperation among different stakeholders is an established pillar of anti-trafficking efforts,
addressed by numerous international instruments, including the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish
Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime; the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings; the European Union (EU) Action Plan on best practices, standards and procedures for
combating and preventing trafficking in human beings (“EU Action Plan”); and the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings. Furthermore,
different sets of guidelines and other operational tools have been developed at the international level to help
countries implement coordination strategies (e.g. the International Framework for Action to Implement the
Trafficking in Persons Protocol, the OSCE Handbook on National Referral Mechanisms, the International
Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) Guidelines for the Development and Implementation of a
Comprehensive Anti-Trafficking Response, etc.). The concepts and terminology used in this report draw largely
on these and other existing instruments.
Part 1 of this study presents information about cooperation mechanisms and practices related to victims’
protection and assistance measures, comparing data from the 11 CBSS Member States (Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation and Sweden). The data
presented in this part of the study is compiled into five main sections:
Chapter 1 describes the development of anti-trafficking policy tools, such as National Programs and Action
Plans (NAPs) or equivalent instruments in the participating countries.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of existing National Coordination Mechanisms (NCMs) focusing in
particular on National Coordinators (NC), Inter-Agency Coordination Bodies (IACB), and working groups at
the operational/local level.
Due to the fact that in some countries anti-trafficking coordination units (also referred to as anti-trafficking
coordination agencies or centres) are being established or considered, a section has been introduced to reflect
developments in this area. While the mandates of these new bodies are not yet clearly defined (some are
being piloted, others are still to be agreed upon), an attempt has been made to describe current features under
consideration in Member States.
Where dedicated units, such as law enforcement anti-trafficking units or specialised prosecutors have
been established, this has also been documented. The inclusion of specialised units in the section devoted
to coordination mechanisms is based on the consideration that such units de facto carry out an important
coordination function in anti-trafficking efforts, although their mandate does not necessarily specify co-ordination
as an explicit task.14
An overview of National Rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms is provided in Chapter 3. This chapter aims
at mapping the existence of independent institutions monitoring the phenomenon and the effectiveness of
responses devised in the county, as well as gathering and analysing data from different sources, including State
actors and civil society organizations. However this study does not focus in particular on data gathering, an
issue that is being addressed through other projects and initiatives.15, 16
14 In some countries, e.g. in Poland, the special units are officially mandated to enhance cooperation. See NAP, Poland,
2009-2010.
21. 9
Chapter 4 presents information on existing cooperation agreements such as Memoranda of Understanding
(MoUs) aimed at facilitating cooperation between and among State actors and civil society organizations.
To gather direct insight into how cooperation functions at the operational level in each country, Chapter 5 has
been devoted to specific areas relating to victim protection and assistance measures. The parameters selected
for the analysis include identification and referral practices, assistance and support systems, residence
regimes, victims/witnesses in-court proceedings, and regional cooperation for the safe referral, return and
re-integration of victims.
15 All analysts point out the difficulties of data gathering in this field. See among others B. Hancilova and C. Massey,
Evaluation of EU Member States’ legislation and the situation concerning trafficking in human beings for the purpose of
sexual exploitation, ICMPD, 2010 (awaited soon); I. Orfano, ”Trafficking in human beings: An analysis of the litera-ture
and an overview on the phenomenon in six European countries”, in I. Orfano et al., Headway. Improving Social
Intervention Systems for Victims of Trafficking, Noktus, Warsaw, 2007. p. 14-16. Methodologies are being developed and
tested in other regions. See for instance ICMPD, Handbook on Anti-Trafficking Data Collection in South Eastern Europe:
Developing Regional Criteria, Vienna, 2007.
16 The CBSS TF-THB plans to carry out a study on data collection about human trafficking cases in the CBSS Region
in the course of 2010.
22. 10
1. ANTI-TRAFFICKING NATIONAL ACTION PLANS
Anti-Trafficking Programs and Action Plans (NAPs) have contributed significantly to the coordination of State
actors and civil society organizations in many regions of the world. As summarised in a recent report, “NAPs are
used to plan a country’s actions against THB in a systematic, organized and co-ordinated way. They link a country’s
framework of operational activities – its programs and other measures – to its strategic vision. The NAP is the
blueprint for how, when and by whom strategic and operational activities are to be accomplished.” 17
NAPs have also contributed to growing recognition of the importance of a human rights, victim-centred
approach in anti-trafficking efforts – a principle which is now acknowledged among practitioners from different
backgrounds.
It should be stressed that NAPs are not legally binding tools. Measures envisaged in NAPs need to be
implemented through legislative and operational initiatives in order to have an impact on reality. The
existence of such policy tools is therefore per se not a sufficient indicator of the state of anti-trafficking efforts
in a country. Yet NAPs are very often the first step in a country’s attempt to build a response system that over-comes
fragmentation of efforts to achieve multi-disciplinary coordination. In this respect, they are significant
indicators for the research objectives of this study.
State of the Play in the Region
Most countries in the CBSS region have introduced national anti-trafficking programs and NAPs or other
policy tools that include anti-trafficking policy provisions in the last few years.
In 2002, only two countries (less than 20%) had a dedicated anti-trafficking policy tool. In 2005, six of the
eleven Member States (about 54%) had approved anti-trafficking policy tools.18 By 2009, nine countries out of
eleven (about 80%) have a dedicated anti-trafficking policy instrument.
One Member State, Germany, which has been active in anti-trafficking efforts longer than any other country
in the region, does not have a dedicated action plan but has anti-trafficking measures streamlined into other
action plans19.
The Russian Federation has not approved a national action plan yet, but a draft has been prepared for approval.
Some anti-trafficking measures are included in the Mid-Term Program of Russia’s Socio-Economic Develop-ment
(2006–2008). The Russian Federation participates also in the CIS Regional Action Plan related to the
implementation of the CIS Program of Co-operation to Combat THB for 2007–2010. Figure 1 and 2
summarise information about developments in this area.
17 OSCE, “Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings in the OSCE Area, Coordination and Reporting
Mechanism”, Annual Report of the OSCE Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human
Beings, Vienna, 2008, p. 12.
18 Names of tools vary in the region and include “program”, “development plan” as well as “action plan”. In this report
“National Action Plans” (NAPs) is used to refer to dedicated anti-trafficking policy tools as well as policy tools that
include anti-trafficking measures. Official names of the policy tools are reported in figure 2 and in the country profiles.
19 Action Plan on Violence against Women, Action Plan for the Protection of Children and Youth, see also Part 2,
Country Profile, Germany.
23. 11
Fig. 1 Anti-Trafficking Policy Tools in the CBSS Region
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Percentage of Countries that have
Introduced Anti-THB Policy Tools
2002 2005 2009
Source: UNODC-CBSS
Other Policy Tools
No Action Plan
Dedicated Action Plans
The policy tools vary considerably in length and approach. However most of them:
• Contain a strategic level and an operational level (sometimes integrated, sometimes separated into
narrative text and implementation tables)20
• Address the issue of cooperation
• Recognise the validity of a victim-centred approach
Implementation Timeframes
Most NAPs in the CBSS countries include timeframes for implementation which range from two to four
years (see Fig. 2). Regular revisions are foreseen in all countries where an instrument is in place, together with
regular reporting to Government and/or Parliament. Monitoring and evaluation of NAPs is also increasingly
acknowledged as an important feature, with a prevalence of self-monitoring over independent monitoring and
evaluation. In some countries, the techniques for monitoring and evaluation are however not an established
practice and some independent monitoring would be highly beneficial.
Germany and Sweden have different approaches to revising their NAPs. Germany introduced policy measures
to combat human trafficking for sexual exploitation in 1999 and revised them for the first time in 2007. How-ever
numerous developments have taken place in the meantime without having been mandated through NAP
revisions.21
In Sweden, where such policy tools are not a widespread practice and coordination is based on other methods,
a National Action Plan to combat Prostitution and Trafficking was first approved in 2008 and will expire
in 2010. At the time of writing it is not clear if this policy tool will be considered a one-off initiative to give
impetus to anti-trafficking measures, or will be revised and updated on a regular basis.
20 The strategic level includes ideally a preamble, some background analysis, objectives, indicators; the operational level
includes activities, responsible bodies, resources, indicators. ICMPD, Guidelines for the Development and Implementation
of a Comprehensive Anti-Trafficking Response, Vienna, Austria, 2006.
Part 2, Country Profile, Germany.
24. 12
Forms of exploitation
Policy tools in many countries in the region were at first focussed exclusively on sexual exploitation and
on women as a target group. Some NAPs referred or refer to “trafficking in women” or “human trafficking
and prostitution”, etc. (see Fig. 2). Indeed in many countries in the region, the terms “trafficking for sexual
exploitation” and “prostitution” are still used often interchangeably. This is a feature that is rooted in public
discourse and in different philosophies and approaches. For the purposes of this study, it must be mentioned
that from a legal point of view terminology is not a neutral feature, as it has consequences for the type of
support and protection that victims of the crime are entitled to, as well as for the terms of prosecution.22
An evolution with respect to the focus of the policies can be observed in most of the countries, many of
which have gradually recognised the complexity of the phenomenon and the existence of different forms of
exploitation (e.g. labour, forced begging/delinquency practices, forced marriage, organs removal, domestic
servitude, etc.). The names of the policy tools partly reflect this shift in focus (see Fig. 2).
However, policy lines contained in the action plans indicate that counter-trafficking measures and service
provision remain strongly targeted on trafficking for sexual exploitation and on women as a target group.
Information gathered at the operational level confirms difficulties developing capacity to combat trafficking for
other forms of exploitation.
22 On the implications of terminology and interpretation of legal definitions, see among others I. Orfano (2007) p. 23;
OSCE Annual Report of the Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (2008),
p. 35; B. Hancilova, and C., Massey (2010, awaited soon).
23 See also below sections on Special Units, Assistance and Protection Systems.
25. 13
Fig. 2 Implementation Timeframes of Policy Tools
Implementation Timeframes of Policy Tools in CBSS Member States
Denmark
2002 Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Women
2005 Appendix concerning children
2007-2010 Action Plan to Combat THB
Estonia
2006-2009 Development Plan against Human
Trafficking
Finland
2005-2008 National Plan of Action against Traffick-ing
in Human Beings.
2008-To Be Determined. Revised National Action
Plan against Trafficking in Human Beings.
Germany
1999 Federal Action Plan to Combat Violence
against Women
2007 Federal Action Plan to Combat Violence
against Women II
Iceland
2009-2012 Action Plan against THB
Latvia
2004-2008 National Program for Prevention THB
2009-2013 National Program for Prevention of THB
(Approved August 2009)
Lithuania
2002-2004 Program for the Control and Prevention
of THB and Prostitution
2005-2008 Program for the Prevention and Control
of THB
2009-2012 Program for the Prevention and Control
of THB
Norway
2003 Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Women
and Children
2006-2009 Stop Human Trafficking
Poland
2003-2004 National Program for Combating and
Preventing THB
2005-2006 National Program for Combating and
Preventing THB
2007-2008 National Program for Combating and
Preventing THB
2009-2010 National Action Plan against THB
(Approved May 2009)
Russian Federation
Draft National Action Plan (to be approved)
2007-2010 CIS Regional Action Plan
Sweden
2008-2010 Action Plan to Combat Prostitution and
Trafficking in Human Beings for Sexual Purposes
Source UNODC-CBSS
26. 14
2. NATIONAL COORDINATION MECHANISMS
Anti-trafficking National Coordination Mechanisms (NCMs) are a core element of an effective anti-trafficking
response. A single successful formula to design effective coordination mechanisms does not exist. Yet it is
generally acknowledged that NCMs are “about identifying and integrating essential expertise and authorities needed
to combat THB [...and that they] are meant to provide leadership for the coordination of concrete anti-trafficking
efforts and activities [and] organize the collective efforts of a country to produce the most effective [...] results.” 24
CBSS countries have legitimately opted for different solutions in terms of coordination.25 Most of them have
established some form of NCM and in many cases a rather sophisticated coordination framework.
Comparing systems at this level is always a difficult exercise. The use of the same terminology may often hide
substantial differences in mandates; at the same time, different language may be used for bodies that have very
similar functions. In full acknowledgement of the fact that there is always the possibility of misinterpreting data
when carrying out analysis, an attempt has been made to respect country denominations and descriptions, while
providing additional information to allow comparisons whenever possible.
This chapter presents an overview of NCMs taking a broad focus and encompassing policy and operational
levels,26 including in particular:
• National Coordinators (NC)
• Inter-Agency Coordination Bodies (IACB)
• Anti-Trafficking Coordination Units/Centres/Agencies
• Working Groups at the Operational/Local Level
• Specialised Units within Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Authorities
While NCs, IACBs and Working Groups at the Operational/Local Level are often referred to when discussing
NCMs, the other two categories addressed in this chapter-Anti-Trafficking Coordination Units/Centres/
Agencies and Specialised Units within Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Authorities – require a word of
explanation.
The inclusion of a section devoted to Anti-trafficking Coordination Units (also called Centres or Agencies)
was not planned originally. It reflects recent developments at the operational level which recognize these units
as a significant coordination mechanism.
Such units have been established and/or are being piloted in four countries (Poland, Denmark, Norway and
Sweden) and are under consideration in two others (Latvia and Lithuania). Information on mandates is not
always available or clearly defined. This adds to the difficulty of comparing such institutions across systems.
Against this background, an attempt has been made to describe current features under consideration in
Member States based on the information that could be gathered. Sometimes official documentation and
descriptive charts were available; sometimes a proposal to be submitted for approval could be reviewed; in one
instance, information available was based exclusively on interviews with State officials.27
24 OSCE Annual Report of the Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings,
(2008). The document provides an overview on purpose and rationale of NCMs, as well as an overview of NCMs in the
OSCE region.
25 “Because of the existence of different forms of government jurisdiction and legal systems of the participating States,
different models or approaches to national/local co-ordination would be necessary”, ibid. p.27.
26 On the challenges of ensuring effective NCMs covering policy and operational levels, ibid. p.28.
27 Interview with the CBSS THB Task Force Member, Vilnius, Lithuania, June 2009.
27. 15
Finally, the inclusion in this section of data on specialised units such as law enforcement anti-trafficking units
or specialised prosecutors is based on the consideration that such units de facto carry out an important co-ordination
function in anti-trafficking efforts at the operational level, although their mandate may not specify
coordination as an explicit task.
An overview of existing NCMs is summarised in Figures 3 and 4.
Fig. 3 Overview of National Coordination Mechanisms
Overview of NCMs in the Baltic Sea region
64% 91% 55% 73% 82% 18% 45%
NC
Anti-THB Coord. Unit
IACB
Source UNODC-CBSS
Working Groups
Specialised Police
NC – National Coordinator
IACB – Inter-Agency Coordination Body
Sp. Prosecutors
Sp. Border Guards
28. 16
Fig. 4 National Coordination Mechanisms in CBSS Member States
Country NC IACB Coordination Unit Working Groups Specialised Units
Denmark - Yes Danish Centre against Yes Police
Human Trafficking
(CMM)
Estonia Yes Yes - - -
Finland - Yes - Informal Police
Germany - Yes - Yes Police
Iceland Yes Yes - - -
Latvia Yes Yes Proposal Ad hoc Police, Prosecutors
Lithuania Yes Yes Proposal Yes Police, Prosecutors
Norway Yes Yes Anti-THB Coordination Yes Police
Unit (KOM)
Poland Yes Yes Mixed mandate Yes Police, Border Guard,
Prosecutors
Russian Federation - Yes* - - Police, Prosecutors
Sweden Yes** - National Support Yes Police, Border Guards,
Operations against Prosecutors
Prostitution and
Trafficking (NMT)
Source UNODC-CBSS
*A policy and legislative body is in place. A coordination body is expected to be appointed by the President of
the Russian Federation upon approval of the anti-trafficking law by the State Duma.
**The NC in Sweden is appointed temporarily, for the duration of the NAP 2008-2010. The mandate of the NC
is limited to develop and enhance cooperation and coordination amongst key stakeholders.
2.1 NATIONAL COORDINATORS
Seven out of eleven countries (64%) currently have a National Coordinator (NC)28 (see Fig. 4). NCs are
appointed at Ministries of the Interior (MoI), Ministries of the Interior and Administration (MoIA), Ministries
of Justice (MoJ) and Prime Minister’s Offices. In Sweden the National Coordinator is appointed at the County
of Stockholm. The level of the post varies greatly. In some countries it is a senior official, in other countries it is
a junior function. Some National Coordinators have support staff.
Most NCs chair the national IACB.29 In most countries the NC is appointed by the ministry in charge of the co-ordination
of anti-trafficking efforts.30 However each ministry, agency and organization is generally responsible
for implementing tasks within its respective area of responsibility. The mandate of the NC does not encompass
28 In Poland the Undersecretary of the MoIA, who chairs the IACB, has similar functions as a NC. This study respects
the denominations adopted by each country. Wherever possible additional information is provided to illustrate
specificities of each country and allow comparisons beyond official denominations.
29 Sweden has a system that is not easily comparable to other countries. For the specificities of the Swedish system,
please see Fig. 6 as well as Part 2, Country Profile, Sweden.
30 For Sweden, see also note 21. In Iceland the Chair of the recently appointed Specialist and Coordination Team is
based at the Prime Minister’s Office, but the Ministry in charge for coordination of anti-trafficking efforts is the
Ministry of Justice.
29. 17
a direct supervisory role, but foresees the facilitation of coordination by setting the agenda and keeping the
overview on activities carried out by different actors at the national level.
NCs have reporting duties on the state of implementation of the anti-trafficking NAP.
In countries where a NC is not appointed, the issue of leadership is usually addressed by designating one
particular ministry as a focal point for anti-trafficking efforts.
As correctly pointed out in a recent report:
“The choice of which ministry is to lead an inter-ministerial working group can have implications for how the issue
is understood and approached. In some cases, whether intentionally or not, the placement of leadership may impose
a particular policy perspective and operational emphasis. For example, if the lead ministry is a law enforcement or
migration regulation agency, this is likely to have important implications for how the State approaches the issue, and
perhaps especially for how it understands and implements victim-centred principles in cases of THB. [...]
The choice of ministry may also contribute to the issue being viewed and treated primarily or exclusively as a transna-tional
phenomenon, or being treated in its internal or domestic trafficking manifestations. [...]
Finally, the NCM may not operate successfully, or the issue may be marginalized, if its leadership is established in
an office or ministry that does not have much authority within the Government, has a limited mandate, or has low
budgetary resources or none at all.” 31
In 54% of the countries, the coordination function has been given to the MoI or the MoJ.
In Germany the set-up is different, with the competences being divided between two different ministries: the
Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and the Youth and the Ministry of Labour and
Social Affairs, depending on the form of exploitation considered.
In one country – Iceland – the competences have been recently passed from the Ministry of Social Affairs to the
MoJ. However the NC is based in the Prime Minister’s Office.
In Sweden, the focal point for anti-trafficking activities is the Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality,
while the NC is based at the County Administrative Board of Stockholm.
In Denmark, the competence as anti-trafficking focal point is administered by the Department for Gender
Equality, which has been recently moved from the Ministry of Welfare to the Ministry of Employment.
As indicated above, there is no single formula for a perfect balance of expertise and competences. It is essentially
up to each country to evaluate the effectiveness of the solutions adopted.
It surely is worth stressing that at this stage of the process – when structures are being piloted or considered,
and monitoring and evaluation of policies is carried out on a regular basis – such factors are worth considering.
The choice of the body in charge of the coordination function deserves to be considered also in light of
emerging data pointing out the existence of cases of human trafficking for other forms of exploitation (labour,
forced begging, forced marriage, domestic servitude, etc.) which may render institutional frameworks devised in
the past few years obsolete or sub-optimal.
31 OSCE Annual Report of the Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (2008),
p.31.
30. 18
Fig. 5 presents an overview of NC in the region and the ministry in which they are based. It also includes
information about support staff allocated and the level of the post. For countries where a NC is not in place,
the third column indicates what ministry has been designated as a coordination body or as a focal point. For the
other countries, the same column indicates the ministry where the NC is based.
Fig. 5 National Coordinators in CBSS Member States
Country NC Ministry Staff Full-Time Post
Denmark - MoE* - - -
Estonia Yes MoJ - No Adviser
Finland - MoI/ - - -
Germany - BMFSFJ/BMSA** - - -
Iceland Yes PM Office/MoJ*** - No -
Latvia Yes MoI 1 No Director of Department
Lithuania Yes MoI 2 No Vice-Minister
Norway Yes MoJP° - No Senior Adviser
Poland - MoI 5 - Undersecretary of State
Russian Federation - - - - -
Sweden Yes Stockholm County 2 Yes National Coordinator
MIJ°° against prostitution and
THB
* Ministry of Employment, Department for Gender Equality.
** Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.
*** The National Coordinator is based at the Prime Minister Office; the coordination function is with the MoJ.
° Ministry of Justice and the Police
°° In Sweden the National Coordinator is based at the Stockholm County Administrative Board. The Ministry of
Integration and Gender Equality has the coordination function of the National Action Plan. The NC in Sweden
is appointed temporarily, for the duration of the NAP 2008-2010. The mandate of the NC is limited to develop
and enhance cooperation and coordination amongst key stakeholders.
2.2 INTER-AGENCY COORDINATION BODIES
Inter-agency coordination bodies (IACB) are generally responsible for developing policy and following up on
the implementation of agreed-upon measures.
In the CBSS region, nine out of eleven countries (91%) have an IACB involving representatives from different
ministries, competent departments within ministries, law enforcement agencies, sometimes criminal justice
authorities (mostly Public Prosecutor’s Offices), IOs, local government representatives and specialised units.
Civil society actors are involved in all of them (Fig. 6). Their capacity to influence policy decisions varies
depending on the degree of participatory decision-making models used in each country.
In Finland, for instance, civil society actors are invited to participate in meetings of the IACB as expert partners,
but the overall responsibility for the implementation of the NAP rests with government actors; in Lithuania,
NGOs participate in the meetings of the national task force as observers twice a year to share experiences with
governmental actors and can make suggestions for measures to be included in the NAP; in Germany, civil
society representatives have the same decision-making power as the government counterparts; in Norway, the
IACB is an inter-ministerial body, but civil society organizations are included in the decision-making process
through the anti-trafficking national coordination unit (KOM). In Latvia, NGOs participate in the decision-making
process through the National Working Group.
31. 19
In Denmark, a number of civil society actors work with the Danish Centre against Human Trafficking (CMM)
on a contractual basis and participate in regional reference groups as part of the national referral mechanism.
The purpose of the regional reference group is, among others, to bring knowledge and experiences from the
regional and local level to the national and policy level. The overall responsibility for the implementation of the
NAP rests with the IACB, which is composed of representatives from different ministries. The Department of
Gender Equality leads the group.
In Iceland, the Specialist and Coordination Team has just been appointed at the time of writing and procedures
are yet to be established.
In the Russian Federation, a coordination body is expected to be appointed upon approval of the Draft Law to
Combat Human Trafficking.
The inter-agency coordination body meets twice a year in Estonia, Lithuania and Poland; three times a year
minimum in Germany and Denmark; four times a year in Latvia, and six times a year in Finland and Norway.
Figure 6 below summarises the information provided in this section. A list of actors participating in national
inter-agency coordination in each country is provided in Annex I.
Fig. 6 Inter-Agency Coordination Bodies in CBSS Member States
Country IACB Civil Society Frequency of Meetings
Denmark Inter-Ministerial Working Group Other* 3/Year
Estonia Coordination Network Yes 2/Year
Finland NAP National Steering Group Yes 6/Year (average)
Germany Federal Working Group on Trafficking Yes 3 or 4/year
in Women
Iceland Specialist and Coordination Team Yes To be determined
Latvia32 National Working Group Yes 4/Year (minimum)
Lithuania National Task Force Yes 2/Year (minimum)
Norway Inter-Ministerial Commission Other* 6/Year
Poland Inter-Ministerial Committee Yes 2/year
Russian Federation** - - -
Sweden*** National Support Operations against Other -
Prostitution and Trafficking (NMT)
*Civil society organizations are involved through the anti-trafficking coordination units (CMM in Denmark, KOM
in Norway).
** Expected upon approval of the anti-trafficking law.
***There is no formally established inter-agency coordination body in Sweden. it is important to note that any
multi-agency issue, such as trafficking in human beings, requires a consensus within the Swedish Government
for decisions to be made. The responsible ministry needs to gather the input and receive the agreement of all
the relevant ministries before being able to make a decision.
32 In Latvia there is currently only one NGO providing services to victims of human trafficking.
32. 20
2.3 ANTI-TRAFFICKING COORDINATION UNITS/CENTRES/AGENCIES
Some of the Member States have identified the need to have a centralised point of contact to enhance co-ordination
of anti-trafficking activities at the operational level, addressing for instance difficulties connected
with referrals and victims’ assistance, information flow, problem-solving capacity, data gathering, professional
training, etc. A trend seems to have emerged to face a range of rather varied needs through a permanent
structure. In terms of institutional frameworks, such bodies are positioned between the IACB and working
groups at the operational/local level. Titles vary; mandates are at least partially converging. Fig. 7)
Overview
In six out of 11 countries (55%), a THB coordination unit/centre/agency is in place or is being considered.
In Norway, KOM was established in 2006; in Denmark, the CMM was set-up in 2007. Both started as pilot
projects and are being considered as possible solutions to be institutionalised. In Sweden, a unit called National
Support Operations against Prostitution and Trafficking has been recently set up. In Poland, a unit against
human trafficking is based at the Ministry of Interior and Administration. In Lithuania, an Anti-Trafficking
Information Centre is planned. In Latvia, a model for cooperation has been developed that includes a proposal
to establish a coordination agency. The proposal is still on paper and needs to be submitted for consideration.
Funding problems may hamper or delay implementation.
Mandates
As mentioned in the introductory remarks to this chapter, information on mandates of these new units is not
available or clearly defined for all countries that are considering them. However, an attempt has been made
to describe current features under consideration in Member States based on the information that could be
gathered.
In Norway, the KOM acts as a point of contact for referrals, as a problem-solving hub, and as a capacity-building
unit. KOM operates a hotline for trafficked persons; it is tasked with identifying problems at the
operational level and coordinating input to provide solutions; it connects and supports all actors in order to
ensure an effective response; and it addresses training needs and develops technical tools.
In Denmark, the CMM is responsible for ensuring that social services for victims of trafficking are provided
in accordance with the policy lines described in the national action plan;33 to improve and develop procedures
for better collaboration among stakeholders; to provide training to professionals; and to gather and disseminate
information and data on human trafficking and anti-trafficking efforts.
In Sweden, the unit focuses on operational work, coordination of activities, tasks, and case management, as
well as trying to ensure information sharing among agencies and information gathering at the national level is
efficient.
In Poland, the Anti-Trafficking Unit at the MoIA has a mixed mandate, more similar to the mandate of support
staff of a National Coordinator, but also with some of the features characteristic of the above-mentioned units
in the other countries. The MoIA Unit coordinates activities of the action plan, is responsible for preparing
updated versions of it, and supervises the program for victims’ assistance, administered by an NGO. It does not
take care of referrals directly as other coordination units do.
In Lithuania, the planned Anti-Trafficking Information Centre is expected to act as a central point of contact
for referral and assistance for victims of trafficking, offering also short-term shelter (approximately three
nights).The Centre is also meant to collect data about assisted THB victims, including continuity of assistance,
prosecution, and other information about the trafficking case, and to conduct research on THB.
33 Anti-trafficking policies in Denmark prioritize strongly the return of victims to their country of origin, see Part 2,
Country Profile, Denmark.
33. 21
In Latvia, the proposed Anti-Trafficking Coordination Agency described in the “Optimal Model for National
Cooperation,”34 is supposed to be in charge of prevention measures35, coordination of different stakeholders,
capacity-building, research and data gathering. The proposal is on paper at the moment. Funding difficulties are
likely to delay implementation.
Fig. 7 Anti-Trafficking Coordination Units
Country Anti-Trafficking Coordination Units Year Staff
Denmark CMM (Pilot Project) 2007 5
Estonia - - -
Finland - - -
Germany - - -
Iceland - - -
Latvia Proposal Developed - -
Lithuania Agency Planned 2011 N.A.
Norway KOM (Pilot Project) 2006 2
Poland Anti-THB unit in MoIA 2006 5
Russian Federation Data not available - -
Sweden NMT 2009 -
2.4 WORKING GROUPS AT THE OPERATIONAL/LOCAL LEVEL
In an attempt to capture as many layers of coordination efforts as possible and present them in a concise format,
this section contains categories that are rather varied in terms of composition, mandate, and level. This is due to
the different formulas and frameworks set in place in each country. The territorial dimension of countries also
plays a role as the CBSS Member States include a very diverse range of countries. Therefore this section does
not attempt to compare working groups. It simply aims to map layers of institutional response complementing
the ones described in the previous sections for each respective country. A few general observations can be made:
Eight countries out of 11 (73%) have established some form of coordination body at the operational and/or at
the local level. All existing working groups identified include civil society organizations. Denmark and Norway
have set up a rather articulated system.36 In some countries, the working groups are present only in some
regions or municipalities (Lithuania). Working groups are formally established and with a fixed composition
in some cases (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Norway, Poland, Sweden); in others, they are convened on an ad hoc
basis, with different participants depending on the topic (e.g. Latvia) or are convened informally (Finland).
Frequency of meetings is regulated in some cases and flexible in others. (Fig. 8)
More detailed information to interpret country contexts as appropriate can be found in the respective country
profiles.
34 Ministry of Interior of Latvia, Cooperation to Prevent Human Trafficking, Situation Analysis and the Optimal Model for
National Cooperation, EU Equal Project Open Labour Market for Women, Riga, 2007.
35 The term “prevention” is used throughout the document to encompass also protection and prosecution measures.
This renders the model ambiguous as it mixes policy and operational measures pertaining to different areas. Ibid. p.
24–32 and 65–68.
36 For details, see Part 2, Country Profiles, Denmark and Norway.
34. 22
Fig. 8 Working Groups at the Operational/Local Level
Country Oper./Local Working Groups Civil Society Frequency of Meetings
Denmark National Reference Group Yes Quarterly
6 Regional Groups 3-4 Times/Year (flexible)
Working Group to coordinate Quarterly
measures with immigration service
Estonia - - -
Finland City of Helsinki (informal) - Few times per year
Germany Working Groups* Yes As needed
Iceland Planned** Yes As needed
Latvia Ad hoc Yes As needed
Lithuania Regional WG Yes As needed
Norway Project Group Yes 8 Times/Year
Reference Group 8 Times/Year
+Joint Meetings 2/year
Local Coord. Units As needed
Poland Working Group Yes Once/month
Thematic Groups Ad hoc
Regional Groups (planned) -
Russian Federation Data not available - -
Sweden Working Group + Yes -
Local Teams/NGOs***
*Focus on trafficking in women for sexual exploitation.
**An Emergency Team complementing the work of the IACB at operational level is planned.
*** Focus on sexual exploitation and prostitution.
2.5 SPECIALISED UNITS
The establishment of specialised law enforcement units and personnel in the criminal justice system,
specifically trained to deal with human trafficking cases, is widely acknowledged to have significantly
contributed to enhancing anti-trafficking efforts, identification of victims of trafficking, and inter-agency co-operation.
In the CBSS region eight out of 11 countries have established anti-trafficking police units and one country has
established anti-trafficking border guard units (Fig. 9). Specialised law enforcement units often play a key role
in developing and introducing new practices relating to investigative efforts, identification, referral, and co-operation
with service providers.
Five countries out of eleven have specialised staff among the criminal justice authorities in Prosecutors’ Offices.
Low awareness levels of judges are reported rather consistently across the region.
35. 23
Fig. 9 Anti-Trafficking Specialised Units
Country Anti-Trafficking Law Enforcement Units Specialised Prosecutors
Denmark National Centre for Investigations (NCI) -
Estonia - -
Finland* National Bureau of Investigation 10 prosecutors
Germany Police Units -
Iceland - -
Latvia 19 police officers + 4 (regional level) 10 prosecutors
Lithuania 16 police officers 32 prosecutors
Norway 13 police officers 1 support staff -
Poland** 2-3 police officers in 16 regions 16 prosecutors
13 border guards
Russian Federation Specialised Unit, MoI Investigation Department Prosecutors (exact data not
available)
Sweden Police Units (main cities) Prosecutors (main cities)
*Finland has 4 specialised officers at the Finnish Immigration Service.
**Poland has appointed “anti-trafficking consultants”37 in the regional government offices (1 person minimum
in each office). See Annex I.
37 Details on the mandates of the “anti-trafficking consultants” were not made available, but general information
received indicates that their role is to enhance cooperation and coordination in anti-trafficking efforts.
36. 24
3. NATIONAL RAPPORTEURS OR EQUIVALENT MECHANISMS
National Rapporteurs are not a widespread institutionalised practice in the region. The definition of the
duties of a National Rapporteur as an independent State institution in charge of comprehensive data gathering,
independent monitoring and reporting on human trafficking and anti-trafficking efforts at national level is also
not widely recognised.38 Yet the importance of acquiring and analysing data on trafficking and of monitor-ing
the effectiveness of anti-trafficking efforts is generally acknowledged, and data gathering is beginning to
be addressed in most of the CBSS countries, although major challenges are still widely reported. Also regular
reporting to Government and Parliament is an established practice although it may not necessarily be carried
out by the same institution in charge of data gathering and analysis, or by an independent State actor, i.e. a
body/institution with no role in the implementation of anti-trafficking measures.39
Finland is the only country in the region that has recently appointed an independent National Rapporteur
for human trafficking (2009).The mandate has been given as an additional task to the Ombudsman for
Minorities. The Finnish office of the National Rapporteur has a strong mandate, similar to the Dutch model,
and can substantially influence policy decisions in Finland.
Among the countries that have opted in other ways to have an independent institution gather and analyse
independently information on the situation of human trafficking in the country, Lithuania has established a
process to have a research institute or an NGO develop a summary report on a regular basis.
Other formulas have been adopted by some CBSS countries, which cannot be considered equivalent
mechanisms. For instance, Sweden has mandated the National Police Board as National Rapporteur since 1997.
A Detective Investigator at the National Police Board is in charge of carrying out the task. In Germany, the
Federal Criminal Police Office publishes a situation report on human trafficking yearly and presents it to police,
political leadership and decision-making bodies.40 Denmark has tasked the CMM with data collection duties.
In Estonia and Latvia the NCs have been assigned the task of data gathering and analysis. In Iceland the system
is still being discussed.
38 For a concise description of the duties of National Rapporteurs, see the “Alliance Statement on National Rapporteur or
Equivalent Mechanism”, presented by the OSCE Special Representative for Combating Trafficking in Human
Beings (SR) on behalf of the Alliance Expert Coordination Team (AECT), 16 October 2008.
39 On reporting about anti-trafficking policy implementation, see National Action Plans above.
40 The possibility of instituting a National Rapporteur is under consideration in Germany at the time of writing. Part 2,
Country Profile, Germany.
37. 25
Fig. 10 National Rapporteurs, Equivalent Mechanisms and other formulas
Country Independent National Equivalent Other
Rapporteur Mechanism
Denmark - - Danish Centre against
Human Trafficking (CMM)
Estonia - - National Coordinator
Finland Ombudsman for - -
Minorities (2009)
Germany - - Federal Criminal Police
Iceland - - National Coordinator
Latvia - - National Coordinator
Lithuania - Independent report -
by a research institute
or NGO
Norway - - National Coordinator
Poland - - -
Russian Federation - - -
Sweden - - National Police Board
38. 26
4. FORMALISED COOPERATION AGREEMENTS
This section presents information on formalised agreements between different stakeholders. At the outset of the
research, the focus was on mapping the existence of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) regulating duties
and responsibilities and aimed at facilitating the cooperation among anti-trafficking practitioners. In particular,
the existence of MoUs between law enforcement agencies and NGOs was indicated as an area of interest by
many stakeholders interviewed, as MoUs have clearly emerged as a good practice for enhancing anti-trafficking
efforts. However the scope of the research has been expanded to capture the broadest possible range of existing
tools regulating practices related to anti-trafficking efforts and to identify other possible areas for enhanced
cooperation.
As data received was generally not translated, summaries had to be used instead.41 In comparing summaries of
agreements sent by different stakeholders, it appeared that agreements reported included MoUs, agreements
regulating the sub-contracting of services, as well as agreements regulating other operational areas that may
include some anti-trafficking provisions.
Data gathering was structured to identify if the following stakeholders have formalised cooperation:
• Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) – Assistance Service Providers (State/Civil Society Organizations)
• State (variable actors) – Civil Society Organizations
• Criminal Justice Authorities – Civil Society Organizations
• Labour-Civil society Organizations
Law Enforcement Agencies–Assistance Service Providers
(State/Civil Society Organizations)
In this area, MoUs (cooperation agreements) are an established practice only in Germany. They regulate duties
and responsibilities of LEAs and civil society organizations. Other tools (contracts, directives, etc.) complement
them.
In Lithuania, an NGO mentioned the existence of an agreement between the local police and NGOs (2 local
agreements). The information was not mentioned by any other stakeholder. The agreements are very short and
rather general.42
In Latvia, a MoU regulating roles and responsibilities of law enforcement and the only NGO service provider
currently active in this area is expected to be negotiated in 2010.
In Sweden assistance to victims of trafficking is mostly taken care of by State agencies. Cooperation between law
enforcement officers and social workers from the Welfare services is an established practice. In the main towns,
joint teams operate from the same location.
State (variable actors) – Civil Society Organizations
In three countries (Denmark, Latvia, Poland), there are agreements between State actors (relevant Ministry
or coordination units) and civil society organizations. Such tools mostly regulate the financial and legal terms
under which NGOs are supposed to administer services to trafficked persons.
41 See Sources and Methodology above.
42 In Lithuania an agreement between the NGO “Missing Persons Families Support Centre” and the Vilnius police was
signed in 2006. The text of the agreement is available in original language only. It is one page long and information
provided indicates that the agreement is not focussed on human trafficking, but mentions identification of trafficked
persons and includes one provision about the referral of THB victims from police to service provider personnel.
39. 27
In Finland, a MoU between the reception centres and an NGO has recently been signed. It regulates the
possibility for the NGO to charge for translation services during victim interviews.
Criminal Justice Authorities – Civil Society Organizations
No cooperation agreements are currently in place, involving criminal justice authorities and civil society
organizations.
Labour-Civil society Organizations
No cooperation agreements are currently in place, involving labour inspectorates and civil society organizations.
A Look Ahead
In some of the CBSS countries, MoUs are being considered as a next step to address some of the currently open
operational issues. The discussion on the usefulness of MoUs has already made it into the official agenda in
certain countries (e.g. Latvia, Norway); in others, practitioners have mentioned the need for MoUs to clarify
roles and formalise good practices that may have been developed but are based on personal contacts (e.g.
Estonia, Lithuania). Some State officials and civil society representatives interviewed indicated that the
difficulty rests in the lack of vision about what kind of arrangements would best address current needs. For
instance how many MoUs would be appropriate, what actors should be involved and in what combinations,
whether the MoUs should be bilateral or multi-lateral, etc.
Fig. 11 Cooperation Agreements
Country LEA-NGO Other
Denmark - Contractual agreements between the Danish
Centre against Human Trafficking and NGO
service providers
Estonia - -
Finland - MoU State service provider – NGO
Germany Federal Cooperation -
Concept (1999, 2007)
MoU or other cooperation
tool in 12 Länder43
Iceland - -
Latvia MoU planned 2010 MoU of a contractual nature in the field of
protection of public safety between MoI-NGOs
(a total of 16, one of which for THB)
Lithuania 2 local agreements -
Norway - -
Poland* - Contractual Agreement State-NGO
Russian Federation - -
Sweden44 - -
*Some THB provisions in a recent LEA-Labour Agreement (no NGO involvement) and some THB provisions in
a recent Border Guard-Police Agreement (no NGO involvement).
43 Germany is a Federal Republic consisting of 16 Länder.
44 Cooperation between authorities is regulated in paragraph 6 § in the Administrative law, and Section 15 paragraph 5
in the Secrecy Act.
40. 28
5. COOPERATION PRACTICES AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL
This section presents an overview of how cooperation functions at the operational level in specific areas relating
to victims’ protection and assistance measures.
The selection of the areas addressed and the indicators selected are targeted to the priorities of the present
study i.e. cooperation among State actors and civil society organizations to ensure adequate standards of victim
protection and assistance to trafficked persons. Areas considered in this section include:
• Identification practices
• Referral practices
• Assistance and support systems (housing, medical, psychological counselling, legal and administrative
support, re-integration measures)
• Residence regimes
• Victims/witnesses during criminal proceedings
• Regional cooperation for the safe return and re-integration of victims
5.1. IDENTIFICATION
The identification of trafficked persons is still a challenge at the operational level, particularly because victims
are exploited in any number of ways that are constantly changing. It is fair to point out that many stakeholders
interviewed in the course of the project – State officials as well as civil society representatives – showed aware-ness
of the problem.
In trying to keep within the objectives of this study, this section attempts to shed light on specific aspects
of identification procedures relating to cooperation between different stakeholders, keeping the focus on the
fundamental link among identification, referral and access to support services.
Questionnaires and interviews focussed on:
1. The level of formality of the system in terms of identification procedures and the link with access to
assistance services
2. The existence of shared, multi-stakeholder identification tools e.g. guidelines and up-to-date indicators
for identification
In the first area, the indicators used were complex (who can legally identify a trafficked person? Is there a formal
procedure to grant the status of trafficked person? What is the procedure when a practitioner comes across
a presumed trafficked person?, etc.). These questions aimed at highlighting whether systems were informal
enough to guarantee that a person who is “suspected” or “presumed” to be in a trafficking situation may be
reported by anybody into the system and have access to immediate support and assistance.
As for the second area, the rationale for the choice of indicators (development and focus of shared identification
tools) was aimed at ascertaining:
a. What tools are available to help enhance the creation of a shared understanding and approach at the op-erational
level
b. What categories of professionals are addressed
c. Whether instructions focus on diverse forms of exploitation
41. 29
Identification Procedures
Six of the 11 CBSS countries (Estonia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden) have established
procedures for identification of trafficked persons that take into account the fact that a relatively long time and
a number of subsequent steps involving different professionals are generally necessary to ascertain whether a
case is related to human trafficking. In these countries identification procedures are not rigidly formalised and
the broadest possible range of actors, including the public at large, may report a “presumed trafficked person”
into the system in order to ensure immediate support and assistance, without the need for involvement of law
enforcement in assessing the case at an early stage. This approach is often referred to by practitioners as the “low
threshold approach” and it is in line with international best practices.
Formally in these countries, it is only through criminal proceedings that a person may be legally defined
as a victim of trafficking, although the status of “presumed victim” may be applied beforehand in order to
define services, rights, and procedures that are suitable, such as the granting of a reflection period or temporary
residence permits by the immigration authorities, access to specific support services, protection measures, etc.
The importance of not formalising the identification process in its initial stages in order to give any presumed
victim the right to be assisted and supported is a pillar of the response system to combat the crime of human
trafficking. In these countries the principle seems to be fully reflected in the identification procedures.45
In two countries (Denmark and Poland), NGOs are not allowed to identify foreign trafficked persons residing
illegally in the country and provide access to services independently to such category of presumed victims. In
Denmark, the decision on the status of such victims rests ultimately with the Immigration Authorities, but is
based on reports provided by the police and the CMM. If the victims are legally residing in the country, the
CMM can make the determination, based on reports provided by the social organizations that have a contrac-tual
agreement with CMM. In Poland procedures regulating the involvement of NGOs in identification of
foreign nationals who may come into contact first with law enforcement or other authorities are less clearly
defined.46 Anecdotal data seems to indicate that cooperation may happen occasionally but is rather random.47
Latvia has a unique system. VoTs may be identified by law enforcement officers, the prosecutor’s office and the
service providers. However a formal identification procedure administered by a multi-agency commission is in
place for cases “spotted” first by NGOs. The procedure is linked to access to support services and NGOs cannot
independently offer support to presumed victims unless the commission carries out the identification procedure
and grants the status of “victim of trafficking” to the individual concerned. Funding for services is directly
linked to the decisions issued by the identification commission and other competent bodies.
One country (Iceland) has not established identification procedures yet.
Identification Tools
Three countries out of 11 (Estonia, Lithuania and Norway) have developed multi-stakeholder identification
tools to be shared among a broad range of professionals. Labour inspectors or other actors related to the labour
market are not considered stakeholders. Indicators address different forms of exploitation.
45 On the other hand, emphasis on the “fear of abuse” of the system by illegal migrants reported occasionally by some
practitioners indicates a lack of understanding of the complexity of identification processes in human trafficking cases.
46 See Part 2 Country Profile, Poland, Identification and Referral.
47 It must be stressed that one of the key factors that determines compliance with international standards and best
practices in this area is whether law enforcement agencies respect the right of the individual not to be interrogated and
involved in investigations during the reflection period, and whether access to services is guaranteed for all presumed vic-tims.
42. 30
One country (Denmark) has developed shared guidelines for service providers (State and NGOs), but no
shared tools exist for service providers and law enforcement officers. The indicators are focussed on victims of
trafficking for sexual exploitation. The CMM is working on the development of updated identification tools.
One country (Sweden) is expected to develop shared indicators that are valid at national level. No indication of
the professionals or the forms of exploitation addressed is available.
Three countries (Finland, Germany and Poland) currently have identification tools for single stakeholders,
but no shared tools. The focus of indicators is on victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in Germany and
Poland; it covers additional forms of exploitation in Finland. Updates are expected in all three countries. It
must be noted that while identification tools for specific categories of professionals are encouraged, they should
be based on a shared approach to avoid the risk of fragmentation at the operational level.
One country (Latvia) has developed regulations for the Identification Commission. This tool is used to assess
cases by a multi-disciplinary group. It is not equivalent to guidelines for identification to be disseminated to all
front-liners in the country to help them identify presumed victims as of the first contact. Cards for law enforce-ment
officers have been developed (portable format) but need to be updated in line with new legislation and
rules. Indicators also need to be updated with all forms of exploitation.
Additional Remarks
Some of the recently developed identification tools for multi-stakeholders are rather comprehensive and provide
guidance on how to use indicators and what to do in case of contact with a presumed trafficked person (e.g.
who to contact depending on the entry point). Some also include information on conducting initial interviews.
Questionnaire responses and information gathered during interviews indicate limited capacity to use
identification tools that focus on less familiar forms of exploitation. At the operational level, the majority of
stakeholders surveyed and interviewed focus on trafficking for sexual exploitation. Many acknowledge that cases
of labour exploitation are observed, however some actors decline responsibility to look into labour cases due to
lack of mandate or lack of capacity.
Stakeholders in all CBSS Member States indicated that while identification capacity of NGOs and law en-forcement
specialised units has been considerably enhanced in the past few years, especially with respect to
some forms of exploitation, non-specialised personnel both within State service providers and law enforcement
agencies are not always capable of identifying a possible victim of trafficking. Capacity to identify trafficking
for forced labour or trafficking for other forms of exploitation (forced marriage, domestic servitude, forced
delinquency practices, etc.) is still limited.
As specialised units are generally based in the capital or in bigger towns, anti-trafficking capacity is concentrated
in major urban areas. Smaller towns and rural areas tend to remain neglected. The limited awareness of
different forms of exploitation seems to reinforce the opinion that human trafficking happens only in bigger
towns.48
48 For a different perspective, see the OSCE Third Occasional Paper, A Summary of Challenges on Addressing Human
Trafficking for Labour Exploitation in the Agricultural Sector in the OSCE Region, Vienna, 2009.
43. 31
Fig. 12 Multi-Stakeholders Identification Tools
Country Shared Guidelines Indicators Target Groups
Denmark 2008 Sexual Exploitation CMM and service providers (State,
NGOs)
Estonia Jan 2009 Updated LEAs, NGOs, Immigration, selected
Prosecutors and Judges
Finland* - - -
Germany - - -
Iceland - - -
Latvia** Regulations General Members of the Identification
Commission
Lithuania 2008 Updated LEAs, NGOs, Prosecutors
Norway Nov 2008 Updated All actors and the public
Poland*** - - -
Russian Federation N.A. N.A. N.A.
Sweden Expected N.A. N.A.
*Different guidelines and indicators are used by practitioners. There are no shared tools.
**Regulations for the Multi-disciplinary identification Commission have been approved in 2006. However this
tool is not an operational tool to be used by front-liners to enhance identification capacity at the operational
level. A set of identification cards (portable format) for LEA officers were developed in the past. They need to
be updated. They are not a shared tool.
*** Guidelines for LEAs were approved in 2003. They are to be revised and updated in the foreseeable future.
Guidelines for Prosecutors were developed at the same time. There are no shared tools.
5.2 REFERRAL
Referral is a general term that describes any process through which an individual is sent, or rather “referred”, to
all the services s/he may need.
Ensuring effective referral to trafficked persons is an area in which countries report numerous challenges. The
entry points (possible identification points) are numerous and the type of cases and victims’ needs are varied.
Furthermore the necessity to keep the system flexible is not easy to reconcile with the targeting of services. Due
to the complexity of most cases, which entail security implications in addition to possible health, psychological
and other social support, ensuring that victims do not “fall into the cracks of the system” and get lost halfway
through the process is also still a problem that is commonly reported.
One of the ways that countries have found to simplify matters is the establishment of a “first point of contact”
to facilitate referrals. Hotlines have proved useful in this respect, although only partially so. In some countries
the creation of pilot anti-trafficking coordination units is considered a possible response to the current
challenges (see section above) – the results of which can be evaluated only with time. In Denmark, the hotline
and the CMM are used as a first point of contact and referral. In Norway, the KOM and the Rosa project
combined with the respective hotlines have reportedly enhanced referrals significantly.49 Hotlines are very often
used as referral instruments also in other countries, but the resulting quality of the referral system is often based
on knowledge of individual operators about who to contact when and for what.
49 See Part 2, Country Profiles.
44. 32
Some countries have recently attempted to develop guidelines or similar tools for referral i.e. rules about what
to do in case of contact with presumed victims, list of contacts of assistance services and specialised units,
descriptions of procedures to be followed depending on the entry points. In Estonia, such a tool was developed
earlier this year and is being tested. In Norway, a similar tool is being worked on at the time of writing.
One of the key links to make in human trafficking cases is between all possible identification actors and service
providers (State or NGOs)50, especially between law enforcement agencies and service providers, and it is
essential that communication is established as soon as contact is made with a presumed trafficked person. Some
of the following practices may be used as indicators to assess the status of cooperation:
• Procedures or working methods to ensure that support services are contacted upon first contact with a
presumed trafficked person
• Joint interviews upon first contact with a presumed trafficked person
• Joint risk assessments
In Denmark, a working method has been informally agreed upon whereby the police calls the hotline admin-istered
by the CMM, who then appoints a social worker. The social worker provides the presumed victim with
information regarding support and assistance available.
In Norway, a case manager from the police and the service provider is appointed to ensure that the cases are
followed as needed. Joint interviews and risk assessments are an established practice.
In Germany, referral practices between police and NGOs are regulated through cooperation agreements.
In Finland, Lithuania and Poland, instructions to police officers have been issued concerning the need to in-volve
assistance services in human trafficking cases, providing information on the right to support and assist-ance.
In Estonia, guidelines have been developed but operational practices are limited mostly to personal contacts. In
Iceland procedures are still to be established. Information about the Russian Federation is not available.
5.3 ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM
The CBSS region comprises countries with very diverse historical, political and economic backgrounds, con-fronted
by different challenges with respect to the phenomenon of human trafficking. Public policy approaches
impact significantly on victims’ assistance and support measures in all of its aspects: The range and standards of
welfare services vary considerably among Member States; the practice of cooperation between State and non-
State actors, and/or in particular between law enforcement agencies and service providers (whether State or civil
society-based) is also different from country to country. These considerations play an important role in shaping
the anti-trafficking response in general and on victims’ support and assistance in particular.
With this important caveat in mind, the mix of assistance services offered to victims of trafficking in the CBSS
countries generally includes safe housing (shelter), medical support (emergency care or broader), psychological
counselling, legal aid, administrative support, other welfare assistance (such as financial help, clothing, etc.);
in some cases re/integration measures ranging from recreational activities, training, job placement support,
etc. Services are offered by State institutions, civil society and international organizations (IOs). Some are
specialised services (e.g. shelters for trafficked persons only), others are generic (e.g. health and welfare services).
50 In most countries, the NGOs are the most important actors at this level, but there are exceptions. For instance, in
Sweden the service providers are mostly State actors. Details of similarity of patterns and issues between Swedish service
providers and NGOs are reported in Part 2, Country Profile, Sweden.
